Author Topic: Istock's NEW model release requirements (Read 21477 times)

zzz · « **Reply #25 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:12 »

See, people come here to this forum bashing istock all the time. Some people come up with weird reasons, half-truths, or just plain pointless rants. The same goes for other agencies but I get the impression most of the hate goes against istock and I wonder why.

I signed up here as I was planning to ask eventually for advice whether it is worth going into RM. But I can't help but see a lot of childish behavior and I don't know if asking for advice on this forum will get me the right amount of unbiased input when I ask for it. Why? Because facts will be mixed with fiction by some members.

If my opinion is unwanted, I'll just leave this forum altogether.

Sorry for going OT. Back to the regular program.

dbvirago · « **Reply #26 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:31 »

".......and I wonder why."

Apparently you don't.

I didn't bash Istock. They have a bug in their system that doesn't allow users with IE8 to log on easily. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Their solution is to ask users to delete all cookies everytime you want to log on. I feel this is unreasonable, given that the other several dozen sites I log onto every day work fine. I especially think it's unreasonable to ask clients wanting to purchase my images to go to a lot of trouble to spend their money.

zzz · « **Reply #27 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:45 »

And, uh, what again has this to do with model releases???

Digital66 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:50 »

Quote from: Whitechild on August 26, 2009, 19:16

...Soon I expect agencies to ask of us to send a blood sample by post every time we submit new image.

OMG!

Will that be the next step

zzz · « **Reply #29 on:** August 26, 2009, 21:06 »

Asking for blood samples seems unrealistic. Asking for proper model releases, e.g. for people that can recognize themselves even if faces cannot be seen, is sound and not asking too much.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #30 on:** August 27, 2009, 00:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 10:49

Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

Nice! But what about this:

Quote

I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

Is it okay?

Aetherial · « **Reply #31 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:07 »

the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Karimala · « **Reply #32 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:07 »

Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07

the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200! Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

corepics · « **Reply #33 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:39 »

Quote from: Karimala on August 27, 2009, 02:07

Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07
the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200! Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

Shoots, which have taken place prior to September 1st can still use the "old" model release. These changes seem to go in effect for shoots, planned after 1 September. So, you should be fine to upload those older photos with the older model releases, also after the new rules apply.

leaf · « **Reply #34 on:** August 27, 2009, 03:29 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on August 27, 2009, 00:47

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 10:49
Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

Nice! But what about this:

Quote
I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

Is it okay?

yeah, that was my question too.. but you worded it better. iStock won't have a problem with those places - it is the other agencies that would. I have had a release rejected by dreamstime because it said 'goverened by the laws of Alberta'

Dreamframer · « **Reply #35 on:** August 27, 2009, 03:58 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 21:06

Asking for blood samples seems unrealistic. Asking for proper model releases, e.g. for people that can recognize themselves even if faces cannot be seen, is sound and not asking too much.

Of course it's unrealistic, it was just a joke. But also, asking for MR for almost every single shot is also too much.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #36 on:** August 27, 2009, 06:25 »

This is getting out of control. I understand the concept of wanting a release for each shoot - but let's look at the practicality. IS does not have a practical way to deal with MR storage. If I shoot an adult, a teen and a child then I have to upload a minimum of 6 different MR JPEG's. This is because you must use PS and stitch the various MRs together depending on how you shoot.

There is DeepMeta but that has other issues with the new system. I tend to name the model release after the model - that way I know which one I need. When you import the MR into DeepMeta it retains the name of the file. So for a shoot in March with Jane Doe I will have an MR called "JaneDoe" and for the shoot in July I will have another MR called "JaneDoe". The fact that you have to rely solely on 3rd party software to be efficent at all is another issue all together.

I seriously doubt that the other agencies will take the new release. Understandably they won't take anything with IS's name on it. I have yet to see a release from IS that didn't have their name and address at the top along with their copyright mark on the bottom.

stokfoto · « **Reply #37 on:** August 27, 2009, 07:53 »

Quote from: leaf on August 26, 2009, 08:51

also new: releases require a models birthday

I am quite worried that models might not want to include the exact day and month only year should be enough.

Btw Thanks for the heads up and posting this I did receicve the newsletter from IS but I didn't read it properly.

Opla · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:15 »

Quote from: leaf on August 27, 2009, 03:29

yeah, that was my question too.. but you worded it better. iStock won't have a problem with those places - it is the other agencies that would. I have had a release rejected by dreamstime because it said 'goverened by the laws of Alberta'

Me too, with an MR that said "...opposite New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand".
Rejection reason: - The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties reside, or by international laws.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:22 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on August 27, 2009, 06:25

There is DeepMeta but that has other issues with the new system. I tend to name the model release after the model - that way I know which one I need. When you import the MR into DeepMeta it retains the name of the file. So for a shoot in March with Jane Doe I will have an MR called "JaneDoe" and for the shoot in July I will have another MR called "JaneDoe". The fact that you have to rely solely on 3rd party software to be efficent at all is another issue all together.

JaneDoe_032009, JaneDoe_072009

That's what I do.

Opla · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2009, 13:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 27, 2009, 08:22

Quote from: azurelaroux on August 27, 2009, 06:25
There is DeepMeta but that has other issues with the new system. I tend to name the model release after the model - that way I know which one I need. When you import the MR into DeepMeta it retains the name of the file. So for a shoot in March with Jane Doe I will have an MR called "JaneDoe" and for the shoot in July I will have another MR called "JaneDoe". The fact that you have to rely solely on 3rd party software to be efficent at all is another issue all together.

JaneDoe_032009, JaneDoe_072009

That's what I do.

20090301 Jane Doe, 20090701 Jane Doe
is what I do.

You can delete MR's in DM btw, took me a while to find out...

icefront · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2009, 15:09 »

If I shoot today and a week later and then upload 1 week later... It's ok to upload 1 release? How will they figure out when was the second shoot made?
I don't consider reading metadata since I simply can eliminate the metadata from the file.

Sorry if this is answered in the IS post but I have no patience to read those "Great article", "very useful article", "Good info" and such bigoted posts. what can be soooo good, useful or great??? It's a simple information.

Karimala · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2009, 15:22 »

Quote from: taglist on August 27, 2009, 02:39

Quote from: Karimala on August 27, 2009, 02:07
Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07
the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200! Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

Shoots, which have taken place prior to September 1st can still use the "old" model release. These changes seem to go in effect for shoots, planned after 1 September. So, you should be fine to upload those older photos with the older model releases, also after the new rules apply.

Thank you!!! What a relief.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2009, 17:09 »

I agree that a MR for each photo is exagerate, but I always thought a MR should be connected to a specific series of images. Just because a person allowed you to sell an image of him, doesn't mean he would allow ANY image you took of him. Once I thought that, if I were shooting people's images, I would attach a contact sheet to the release, so it would be clear which photos were agreed upon.

But then I don't shoot people.

Suljo · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2009, 20:30 »

Thanks iStock for youre very good work on screwing all us about.
I love when I shoot 5 mins and spare half hours to manage some model relises.
Its fun! its cool!
Wiva Stokaaaaaaa
Before this I am very close in person with my self, but after youre new model relise I finnaly have much more time with my clients to have cheap talk and explain them that is what they dream about it.
Please dont stop and invent more useful questions. People loves you, so dont stop.
WE want more questions EG how much whiskers on youre but an so on.
Keep good work...

Cmoan iStock make my day... Ihaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Alatriste · « **Reply #45 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:20 »

Are other agencies accepting getty´s release without the part of "New York, Alberta, England, Australia and new Zeland"?
If removing this part, will Istock accept this release?

fotografer · « **Reply #46 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:37 »

He's actually being ignored by 6 members now.

Quote from: dbvirago on August 26, 2009, 19:54

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 18:54
What do model releases have to do with how a site runs? Some of you act like little kids... If istock is oh-so-miserable, just stop uploading there.

You've been around a couple months, posted 6 times and already two people have set you to ignore. Nice work for a troll.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #47 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:21 »

Quote from: Alatriste on October 14, 2009, 04:20

Are other agencies accepting getty´s release without the part of "New York, Alberta, England, Australia and new Zeland"?
If removing this part, will Istock accept this release?

Just use it as is.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #48 on:** October 25, 2009, 14:06 »

I use the Getty release as standard in fact it is adapted slightly from the iStock one anyhow. No problem having it accepted by all stock agencies...Getty, Corbis, Tetra etc. Getty are on the ball legally and it's a safe bet that their release is as tight as a fishes tucus.

FD · « **Reply #49 on:** October 26, 2009, 02:02 »

Quote from: Zeus on October 14, 2009, 09:21

Quote from: Alatriste on October 14, 2009, 04:20
Are other agencies accepting getty´s release without the part of "New York, Alberta, England, Australia and new Zeland"?
If removing this part, will Istock accept this release?
Just use it as is.

Will that also work on other microstocks like SS, DT, etc.. ?
A release for every shoot is no sweat, but two releases, one for iStock, and another for all the rest would be overkill.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock's NEW model release requirements (Read 21477 times)

zzz

dbvirago

zzz

Digital66

zzz

Konstantin Sutyagin

Aetherial

Karimala

corepics

leaf

Dreamframer

NancyCWalker

stokfoto

Opla

Sean Locke Photography

Opla

icefront

Karimala

madelaide

Suljo

Alatriste

fotografer

PeterChigmaroff

PixelBitch

FD

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors